Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially

Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis
Stephanie M. Tully, Russell S. Winer ∗
Stern School of Business, New York University, 40 West 4th Street, New York, NY 10012, United States

Abstract
Many companies have made significant investments in socially responsible production practices for their products. Environmentally safe cleaning
products, fair trade coffee, and sustainable seafood are just a few examples. In this paper, we conduct a meta-analysis of over 80 published and
unpublished research papers across a large number of product categories to better understand differences in willingness to pay (WTP) for socially
responsible products. In particular, we are interested in whether the beneficiary of the social responsibility program—humans, animals, or the
environment—affects WTP. We use two dependent variables: the percentage premium people are willing to pay and the proportion of respondents
who are willing to pay a positive premium. We find that the mean percentage premium is 16.8 percent and that, on average, 60 percent of respondents
are willing to pay a positive premium. Importantly, across both dependent measures, we find that WTP is greater for products where the socially
responsible element benefits humans (e.g., labor practices) compared to those that benefit the environment. Implications for retailers, manufacturers,
and future research are discussed.
© 2014 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Social responsibility; Willingness-to-pay; Environment; Fair trade; Animal rights

Socially responsibly produced products and services are
becoming more important than ever for retailers as their pres-
ence continues to increase dramatically. Environmentally safe
cleaning products, fair trade coffee, and sustainable seafood are
just a few examples of this growing trend. Recently, Levi Strauss
announced a line of jeans with a pitch “These jeans are made of
garbage.” The Waste < Less jeans are composed of at least 20
percent recycled plastic (BusinessWeek 2012). Although compa-
nies and retailers offering socially responsible products provide a
benefit to society, economic incentives are often a catalyst for, or
at least an input into, the decision by a firm or retailer to provide
socially responsible products (Karnani 2012). Understanding
consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for products produced
using socially responsible practices is important for the future
success of such endeavors. Despite the growth in this product
area and previous research on WTP, we found few studies in
marketing that have directly addressed this issue, with almost
all focused on WTP for either coffee or apparel with socially
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 998 0540; fax: +1 212 995 4006.
E-mail addresses: stully@stern.nyu.edu (S.M. Tully),
rwiner@stern.nyu.edu (R.S. Winer).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.03.004
0022-4359/© 2014 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
responsible attributes (e.g., De Pelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp
2005; Ha-Brookshire and Norum 2011).
Despite other disciplines examining this issue, there are still
many unanswered questions about consumers’ WTP for prod-
ucts produced using socially responsible methods. For instance,
it is unclear how much more consumers on average are willing
to pay for socially responsible products in general. As might
be expected from the rise in socially responsible product offer-
ings, many studies have found that consumers are willing to pay
a relatively large premium for these products (e.g., Aguilar and
Vlosky 2007; De Pelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp 2005; Saphores
et al. 2007). However, a smaller number of studies have reported
premiums closer to zero (e.g., Grönroos and Bowyer 1999) or
even to be negative in rare cases (e.g., Akkucuk 2011). In addi-
tion, the retail sales for some socially responsible products have
been slow. For example, Clorox’s widely heralded line of Green
Works cleaning products has had considerable difficulty gain-
ing traction with retailers and consumers. Importantly, price has
been suggested to be one of the top barriers to green consumption
(Gleim et al. 2013).
Beyond the average WTP for socially responsible prod-
ucts, factors that influence WTP for socially responsible
products are still relatively unknown. Research has examined
256 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
individual differences that can explain variations in WTP for
socially responsible products (e.g., Balderjahn 1988; Roberts
1996). Relatively less is known about the factors of socially
responsible products themselves that may contribute to differ-
ences in willingness to pay. Understanding the economic value of
implementing different types of socially responsible practices to
consumers is of interest to society, manufacturers, and the retail-
ers who distribute the manufacturers’ products. For instance, are
products advertising the use of fair wages to employees more
or less likely to increase a consumer’s WTP compared to those
advertising the use of environmentally friendly tactics? This is
not a trivial matter. A recent article in Forbes said that many
corporate leaders, realizing lackluster return on social respon-
sibility investments, want to know the best way to increase the
value of these investments (Klein 2012).
To examine systematic differences in WTP for socially
responsible products, we employ a meta-analysis of a large
group of studies that have explored WTP for such products.
Meta-analyses have been widely used in marketing. Some well-
known examples are in the areas of advertising (Assmus, Farley,
and Lehmann 1984; Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011), pri-
cing (Bijmolt, van Heerde, and Pieters 2005; Tellis 1988), and
diffusion models (Sultan, Farley, and Lehmann 1990). These
meta-analyses have helped the marketing field develop a large
set of empirical generalizations (Hanssens 2009).
Meta-analysis has also been used to understand variation in
WTP for socially responsible products (Cai and Aguilar 2013;
Lagerkvist and Hess 2011). However, past meta-analyses have
concentrated on one product category (e.g., wood products) and
one type of social responsibility (e.g., the environment). By
widening the set of studies included in the meta-analysis, we are
able to make broader generalizations about average WTP for
socially responsible products and can examine factors not yet
rigorously tested. Using each study in a paper as one data point
permits an analysis of multiple product categories using differ-
ent types of social responsible practices that differ in strength of
social norm. In doing so, our meta-analysis is able to examine
whether consumers are likely to pay a larger or smaller premium
for socially responsible products that benefit the environment
compared to those that benefit human working conditions and
whether differences in social norms for different products can
predict variation in willingness to pay. See Table 1 for a com-
parison of the current research to previous meta-analyses.
The goal of this meta-analysis is to generate a set of findings
about consumer WTP for socially responsible products that are
not conditional on the particulars of any single study, product
type, or social responsibility type and to provide researchers, pol-
icy makers, and retailers with a concise synthesis of the research
results. Moreover, we aim to test moderators of the WTP for
socially responsible products that may be of particular interest to
retailers such as the type of socially responsible beneficiary and
the social norms associated with a socially responsible product.
Main hypotheses
In the current work, we examine whether variation in WTP
can be explained by factors associated with the product and
social responsibility type as well as general characteristics of the
data collection method. More explicitly, we suggest that the vari-
ance in WTP for socially responsible products may be influenced
by the beneficiary of the social responsibility and the social
norms for the socially responsible product. We also examine
how product domain, product certification and characteristics
of WTP elicitation such as the year the study was conducted,
whether the method of elicitation is incentive-compatible, and
whether respondents are allowed to respond with negative values
for WTP influence WTP estimates.
Beneficiary of social responsibility
The ISO 26000, an organization tasked with standardizing
guidelines for social responsibility, defines social responsibility
as the “responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its
decisions and activities on society and the environment, through
transparent and ethical behaviour” (2010, p. 3). Thus, social
responsibility is a broad term to describe anything a company
might do that benefits society at large. Similarly, socially respon-
sible products provide a benefit to society at large. However, by
using the term socially responsible products, we are referring
to products which benefit society through business practices
used in the creation of the product. Therefore, the manufacturing
choices a company makes (through the labor they employ, the
packaging they choose, the distribution network they use) are
done in a way to provide benefits to society. Choices a company
makes outside of the business practices employed in producing
the good (e.g., giving profits to charity) fall outside the scope of
the current research.
Broadly speaking, socially responsible products can benefit
three types of beneficiaries: the people of a society, the ani-
mals in a society, or the environment. The current literature
makes it difficult to identify differences in WTP across type
of social responsibility. The vast majority of studies on WTP for
socially responsible products focus on one socially responsible
beneficiary so whether the type of social responsibility impacts
consumers WTP is unclear. Only three articles in our literature
review yielded studies that looked across multiple types of ben-
eficiaries of socially responsible products. Loureiro and Lotade
(2005) look at WTP for fair trade coffee (which benefits peo-
ple) and shade-grown coffee (which benefits the environment).
The estimates of WTP across these two types of products are
nearly identical. Carlsson, Garcia, and Löfgren (2010) found
similar results. However, Hustvedt, Peterson, and Chen (2008)
find that there is a greater interest in socially responsible wool
products which benefit animal rights than wool products benefit-
ting the environment. Given the small range of studies examining
willingness to pay across beneficiaries, and the differences in
findings across the few studies, it is currently difficult to make
any generalizations. Thus, if a retailer has the choice of stock-
ing a product that provides fair wages to its employees or one
made from renewable resources, it is currently unknown which
product will allow for a greater price premium.
We hypothesize that the beneficiary of social responsibility
will impact WTP. Although environmentally friendly products
have garnered much hype in recent years, we suggest that
 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
Table 1
Comparison of previous meta-analyses to current meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis Social responsibility
beneficiary
Cai and Aguilar (2013) Environment
Lagerkvist and Hess (2011) Animals
Current research Environment, people,
and animals
socially responsible products that benefit people may be more
likely to increase sales. While polls suggest that many people
care about the environment (Nielsen 2011), as noted previously,
sales of “green” products have often proven lackluster (Clifford
and Martin 2011; UNEP 2005). Additionally, if an increase in
WTP for socially responsible products is viewed as a form of
donation toward the beneficiary, charitable contributions in the
United States show that only 3 percent of charitable donations
go toward animals and the environment combined compared to
a much larger percentage going to causes that benefit people
such as education and human services (Giving USA 2013) sug-
gesting that people are more likely to pay for things that benefit
other humans. Therefore, our main hypothesis is that WTP for
socially responsible products that benefit people will be sig-
nificantly greater than those that benefit the environment. The
findings of Hustvedt, Peterson, and Chen (2008) suggest that
products benefitting animals may well elicit greater WTP com-
pared to those benefitting the environment. However, given the
limited number of charitable donations toward animal causes,
this prediction is less clear. Further, how socially responsible
products that benefit both the environment in addition to another
beneficiary will compare to products benefitting the environment
alone is also unclear. One might expect that adding additional
beneficiaries will provide more motivation for consumers, but
this is speculative as there is no literature to support a directional
hypothesis.
Domain
Beyond the type of social responsibility, there is some evi-
dence that differences in WTP for socially responsible products
vary as a function of product type. If a retailer is considering
stocking a socially responsible product, research suggests that
which type of product it is may affect consumers’ WTP. For
instance, Akkucuk (2011) finds significant differences in how
much consumers are willing to pay for recycled furniture com-
pared to other products such as tires or cell phones. However,
257
DV Main findings
Percent premium Mean WTP = 12.2 percent. Consumers are willing to pay a greater
percent premium for products with lower base prices, for products
that are more frequently purchased, when the elicitation method is
indirect rather than direct, for contingent valuation compared to
conjoint analysis, and for more recent studies.
Percent premium Younger age and greater income is positively associated with WTP.
Consumers were found to be willing to pay a lower percent
premium for products with legal regulations, when cheap-talk
scripts or double-bound dichotomous choices are used.
Peer-reviewed papers had a lower overall WTP.
Percent premium and Mean WTP = 16.8 percent. 59.7 percent are willing to pay a
proportion of people positive amount. Products that benefit people compared to those
that benefit the environment increase WTP both in terms of the
percent premium and the proportion of people willing to pay a
positive amount. Social norms may increase the proportion of
people willing to pay a premium.
this has not systematically been examined. Since there is cur-
rently limited research looking at WTP across product domains,
directional differences are exploratory.
Social norms
Even within product domains (e.g., wood products), different
socially responsible products may elicit differences in willing-
ness to pay. Consumers were found to be willing to pay a
lower price premium over the base price for an environmentally
friendly new home compared to other environmentally friendly
wood products such as a kitchen remodeling job or a ready-
to-assemble chair (Ozanne and Vlosky 1997). However, it is
unknown what may be driving these differences.
It has been reported that frequently purchased products gar-
ner a greater WTP than less frequently purchased products (Cai
and Aguilar 2012; Teisl et al. 2002). Teisl et al. speculate that
this is because frequently purchased products are seen as having
a greater impact on society. Yet, another possibility is that there
may be stronger social norms for some types of socially respon-
sible products compared to others. Products that are frequently
purchased may have more visibility and thus greater social pres-
sure to purchase products produced in a socially responsible
manner. If social norms, rather than frequency of purchase, can
explain differences in WTP, it would be of particular interest to
retailers since social norms are more malleable than changing
product characteristics such as purchase frequency.
The evidence for social norms is currently mixed. Social
norms have been shown to predict WTP in some environmen-
tal contexts (Spash et al. 2009), but not consistently (Carlsson,
Garcia, and Löfgren 2010). However, past research on social
norms has primarily examined social norms within the context
of one product type or by manipulating social norms artificially.
Thus, in the current research, we investigate whether average
perceptions of social norms for different types of socially respon-
sible products can predict WTP. We hypothesize that stronger
social norms will elicit greater WTP.
258 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
Certification
A product that has been certified has passed some form
of quality assurance test or met some objective standards that
guarantees the product meets a minimum level of social respon-
sibility. It typically costs money for companies to become
certified so the cost of products that are certified is often higher.
For example, Fair Trade certification requires the payment of
quarterly licensing fees (Fair Trade USA). Most companies will
pass this additional cost on to consumers often resulting in higher
prices for fair traded products (Stecklow and White 2004). Thus,
it is in a retailer’s interest to know whether certification of a
socially responsible product increases willingness to pay for the
product.
Changes in WTP over time
It is currently uncertain whether WTP for socially responsi-
ble products is changing over time, and if so, in which direction
it is changing. There is both anecdotal and academic research in
favor of increasing WTP over time. Trends show that corporate
social responsibility is becoming more prominent and that con-
sumers are increasingly looking at social responsibility reports
that companies furnish (White 2012). Recently, Nielsen (2011)
reported a 5 percent increase in the last two years in willingness
to reward a company that gives back to society. Additionally,
academic research has shown a significant positive relation-
ship between time and WTP (Cai and Aguilar 2013). However,
there is also both anecdotal and academic support in favor of
decreasing WTP over time. In the last few years, sales of some
eco-friendly options, such as cleaning supplies, have been in
decline (Clifford and Martin 2011; Kurutz 2011). Additionally,
Ozanne and Vlosky (2003) find a negative relationship between
WTP for socially responsible products and time. Therefore, it is
currently unclear whether WTP for socially responsible products
has systematically changed over time.
In addition to the year of data collection, other character-
istics of the study design may be relevant moderators of WTP.
Broadly, these include whether the study is incentive compatible
and whether the study allows negative responses. These charac-
teristics are discussed further in the WTP section below. In the
next section, we provide some background on what willingness
to pay is conceptually and how we use it as a measure of effect
size in our meta-analysis.
Our hypotheses are summarized in Table 2.
Willingness to pay
Conceptual underpinnings
Definitions of customer value or WTP vary (see Jedidi and
Jagpal 2009). A commonly used definition is the economic term,
reservation price, or the maximum amount a customer is willing
to pay for a good, or, stated differently, the price at which a con-
sumer is indifferent between buying and not buying the product
(Jedidi and Zhang 2002). However, there are other definitions.
For example, Hauser and Urban (1986) define reservation price
Table 2
Hypotheses.
Independent variable Hypothesis
Beneficiary H1: Socially responsible products that benefit people
will have a greater proportion of participants that are
willingness to pay a premium compared to socially
responsible products that benefit the environment.
H2: Socially responsible products that benefit people
will garner a greater average premium compared to
products that benefit the environment.
Social Norms H3: Socially responsible products that have greater
social responsibility norms will have a greater
proportion of participants that are willing to pay a
premium.
H4: Socially responsible products that have more social
responsibility norms will garner a greater average
premium compared to socially responsible products that
have less social responsibility norms.
as the minimum price that the consumer will not purchase the
product. Varian (1992) indicates that reservation price is the
price at which or below the consumer will purchase one unit
of the product. As Jedidi and Jagpal (2009) note, these three
definitions have slightly different interpretations in terms of the
probability of purchase at the reservation price with Hauser and
Urban being zero, Jedidi and Zhang being .5, and Varian being
1.0.
Approaches to measuring WTP
There are many methods used to elicit WTP. Open-ended
responses allow a respondent to supply their own value of WTP.
Alternatively, multiple choice methods provide respondents with
a range of options from which they can choose.
Another approach, often used by economists to value natural
resources, is called contingent valuation. Two types of contin-
gent valuation are possible. A within-subjects method provides
a respondent with a starting price and continues to increment
or decrement the price from this point until a consumer reveals
their WTP. A between-subjects contingent valuation technique
gives different prices to each respondent and asks them whether
or not they would buy the product at the stated price in yes or
no form. The sum of all the respondents’ answers to the single
question allows for the creation of a demand curve.
Conjoint analysis estimates WTP for an attribute by estimat-
ing the indirect utility function, V, based on the experimental
design and then estimating the marginal rate of substitution
(MRS) between an attribute (m) and price (p) using the following
relationship:
∂V/∂m
MRS = − . (1)
∂V/∂p
Auctions, both those that are naturally occurring and those
that are staged as part of an experiment, can also be used to
estimate WTP (e.g., Ellis, McCracken, and Skuza 2012). In an
auction, consumers bid on the right to buy the item up for auction.
 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
Real purchase data can be used to estimate WTP. Hedonic
analyses typically use cross-sectional data where there is varia-
tion in product prices for different levels of product attributes.
Alternatively, field experiments can be run varying prices and
product characteristics. The resulting sales can be used to infer
the demand and WTP for the manipulated product features.
While each method of eliciting WTP may result in
small differences, an underlying characteristic of all of these
approaches is whether the method of elicitation is incentive
compatible (Miller et al. 2011). Incentive compatible mea-
surement approaches attempt to ensure that respondents have
an incentive to “tell the truth” about their WTP. For exam-
ple, Wertenbroch and Skiera (2002) apply the well-known
Becker–DeGroot–Marschak (BDM) approach for measuring the
utility of lotteries. Ding (2007) and Dost and Wilken (2012)
have also applied the BDM approach to conjoint analysis and
estimating ranges of WTP rather than a point estimate. Some
methods like auctions are incentive compatible by design. While
real purchase data cannot capture a person’s absolute high-
est willingness to pay, purchase data is also considered to be
incentive-compatible (Wertenbroch and Skiera 2002) because
the purchase decision has real consequences. Other methods
such as hypothetical multiple choice scenarios are not.
Given the wide variety of approaches to estimating WTP, it
is not surprising that there are a number of studies that attempt
to compare them. The most comprehensive comparison study in
the marketing literature was conducted by Miller et al. (2011).
The results showed that the incentive-based methods (BDM and
incentive-based conjoint) had much lower bias against the “real”
criterion than the “hypothetical” methods. Thus, we expect that
methods that are incentive compatible will elicit lower WTP for
socially responsible products than methods that are not incentive
compatible.
WTP as a measure of effect size
In most of the previous meta-analyses in marketing, the effect
size or dependent variable studied is based on statistical anal-
yses of time-series of other secondary data not on primary
data collection from human subjects. Examples include price
and advertising elasticities. As noted above, the definitions of
WTP/reservation price have nuanced differences. In addition,
the vast majority of papers included in our meta-analysis based
their results on experiments or other data collection methods
utilizing human subjects. Unfortunately, many of the papers we
analyzed did not disclose the specific instrument used to col-
lect the data leaving the subjects’ interpretation of the WTP
question or questions unclear. As a result, we make the neces-
sary assumption that differences in interpretation of the WTP
construct across studies do not have an effect on the parame-
ter estimates of our models and, by implication, our substantive
conclusions.
Dependent variables
In the current research, we consider two dependent variables
or effect sizes to examine consumers’ WTP. We considered both
259
the percentage change in WTP from a base price (the uncon-
ditional percent premium) for the socially responsible product
as well as the proportion of participants willing to pay a price
premium for a socially responsible product. These two depend-
ent measures were chosen due to their frequency in reporting
as well as their ability to make meaningful comparisons across
studies. Further, these two dependent variables capture related,
but not conceptually overlapping aspects of consumers’ WTP,
as evidenced by their moderate correlation in studies that report
both (r = .54).
Unconditional percent premium
The percentage difference from the base price that consumers
are willing to pay allows us to quantify the increased monetary
value that consumers place on the socially responsible element.
It is essentially capturing the percent premium a socially respon-
sible product can demand. If a socially responsible element is
costly to implement, this measure can be useful in determin-
ing whether the increased cost can be offset by the potential
increase in WTP. However, the percent difference in WTP is
both a function of the number of people who are willing to pay a
premium and the actual valuation placed on the socially respon-
sible element. This dependent measure is capturing the average
willingness to pay across all participants (the unconditional per-
cent premium). For instance, if the average premium in WTP
is 25 percent, this might be because the average respondent is
willing to pay 25 percent more or it might be because half of
the respondents are willing to pay a 50 percent premium and
the other half of the respondents will not pay any premium.
Therefore, while the average premium across all respondents
is important, so is understanding the proportion of participants
willing to pay a premium.
Proportion of participants willing to pay a premium
The proportion of participants who are willing to pay a pre-
mium of any size can be seen as an indicator of potential market
size. As this percentage gets larger, it suggests that a greater pro-
portion of the population value the socially responsible element
to some extent. However, this dependent measure cannot quan-
tify the change in WTP. For instance, a study in which every
single person is willing to pay a 1 percent premium and a study
in which every person is willing to pay a 30 percent premium
would both show 100 percent of the participants willing to pay a
premium. However, clearly these outcomes have important dif-
ferences when determining both customer value and pricing for
a socially responsible good. Because of each of their strengths
and limitations, we feel both dependent measures are important
to be able to understand meaningful differences in WTP in a
meta-analysis. Further, differences in these dependent variables
across analyses are of theoretical and practical interest.
Conditional percent premium
We also calculated the average percent premium among only
the participants who were willing to pay more for the socially
260 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
responsible product. This may in fact be the most accurate metric
to understand WTP since it is a function of both the proportion
of participants who are willing to pay a premium and the overall
percent premium. Unfortunately, only 21 papers (48 observa-
tions) provided enough information to calculate this measure.
Further, these observations did not provide enough variance in
independent variables (e.g., 41 of 48 observations benefitted the
environment). Thus, we did not use this dependent measure in
any of our analyses.
Data collection
Data were collected using electronic databases (i.e., the
ISCWeb of Knowledge, Google Scholar, NYU Library Catalogs
“Bobcat”) and reference lists from identified studies including
meta-analyses (farm animal welfare: Lagerkvist and Hess 2011;
certified wood: Cai and Aguilar 2013) and review papers (eco-
labels: Gallastegui 2002; fair trade: Anderfer and Liebe 2012).
The literature search used the following keywords, individu-
ally and in combination: animal rights, eco-label, environment,
ethical, fair trade, green, labor, social, willingness to pay, and
WTP.
We included both published and unpublished literature since
publication bias can skew the results of a meta-regression
(Stanley 2005). To further encourage the inclusion of unpub-
lished papers on the topic, we also searched the websites of
authors who have an established history of conducting social
responsible WTP studies. Just under ten percent of the included
papers are working papers. In addition to including unpublished
works, the final sample includes studies from a broad range of
journals, totaling over fifty different outlets.
In order for the study to be included, it had to meet a range
of criteria. In general, we examined whether consumers are
willing to pay a premium for products produced using socially
responsible production practices that do not offer private benefits
(e.g., improved health, economic advantages) for the consumer.
Specifically, we decided to restrict our data to products having a
benefit conferred solely on society so that any incremental WTP
could be attributed to this societal benefit. As a result, studies on
organic foods, which are commonly believed to provide health
benefits, and studies on hybrid vehicles and energy reducing
appliances, which provide economic incentives, were excluded
from our analysis. Without this requirement, personal differ-
ences in valuations of the private benefits may artificially inflate
the valuations of the WTP for the socially responsible element.
Additionally, the social responsibility element had to be inher-
ently part of the product itself. For instance, the company could
use socially responsible practices in the types of materials used,
the production methods employed, or the labor required in mak-
ing or testing the product. Products from companies who do
socially responsible things outside of the production of the prod-
uct can be categorized as products from socially responsible
companies rather than being socially responsible products. Thus,
studies regarding other goodwill that the company generates out-
side of the sale of a product, such as donations to charity, are
outside the scope of the current research.
In total, the full data set includes eighty-one usable papers
yielding 174 observations. Thirty-six papers (96 observations)
are included in both dependent measures data sets. Nine papers
(11 observations) are unique to the proportion of participants
DV set and thirty-five papers (67 observations) are unique to the
percent difference from base price DV set. Given the increasing
amount of research in the area of social responsibility and the
many types of behavior that can be considered socially respon-
sible, we do not claim to provide a comprehensive review of
the social responsibility WTP literature. However, we believe
we have collected a reasonably large and representative sam-
ple of studies on the WTP for socially responsible products for
analysis.
Calculating the dependent variables
Many papers directly report one or both of the dependent
measures. For papers that did not directly report one of both
measures, we attempted to compute the dependent variables
from empirical results provided in the paper. When multiple
choice responses offered ranges, the midpoint of the range was
used as the WTP for that option. When conjoint analysis was
used and WTP estimates were not provided by the authors, we
used expression (1) to calculate the marginal WTP based on the
utility function estimates. In rare cases, social responsibility was
described as being negative (i.e., the product is harmful to the
environment or employees in some way). For these studies, the
sign of the percentage change of WTP was reversed. If a study
did not provide sufficient information to calculate a dependent
variable, that paper was not used as part of the observation set
for that dependent variable.
Independent variables
Socially responsible benefit. The beneficiaries of socially
responsible undertakings can be broadly categorized into three
main types: animals, the environment, or people. Products which
provide positive social benefits to animals provide better liv-
ing conditions for animals through free range practices, more
humane types of castration etc. Environmentally friendly prod-
ucts protect rainforests, reduce pollution, and preserve water
sources, for example. We also categorized practices such as sus-
tainable seafood as benefitting the environment since the use
of these practices is more about eco-system sustainability than
it is about providing benefits to the sea animals themselves.
Finally, people can be beneficiaries of socially responsible prod-
ucts when the product provides fair wages or good working
conditions to its employees. In some papers, there were mul-
tiple recipients of the socially responsible element. In all of
these cases, the beneficiary was the environment in addition to
either people or animals. These were coded as “multiple” and
used to understand if providing more than one beneficiary type
significantly increases willingness to pay.
Domain. We broadly categorized the product type used in
each study. There were five categories that were clearly different
and that had a reasonable number of observations per group.
These were wood, electronics, food, clothing, and other. “Other”
 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
incorporated any product that was not encompassed by the other
categories, but did not have enough observations to serve as its
own category (e.g., hotel rooms).1
Social norms. As a means of understanding consumers’ per-
ceptions about the social norms associated with different socially
responsible products, we polled an online sample and explicitly
asked them to rate the social norms of the products used in the
studies included in our meta-analysis. Two hundred and six par-
ticipants from Mechanical Turk participated in the short study in
exchange for a small sum of money. Twenty participants failed
an instructional manipulation check (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and
Dividenko 2009) and were thus excluded from the analyses leav-
ing a final sample of 186 participants (mean age = 35.5, 60.2
percent male).
The study procedure was as follows. Participants were given
a definition of social responsibility and explained how social
responsibility can benefit people, animals, or the environment.
Next, they read a definition of social norms. We then explained
that they would rate a series of products with socially responsible
practices that benefit either people, animals, or both the envi-
ronment in terms of how strong any social norms to buy these
types of products are and provided an example product that was
not part of the data set (disposable diapers with environmental
benefits). Each participant rated 25 randomly selected socially
responsible products from the full list of 69 possible combina-
tions. They were asked “How strong are the social norms to
purchase [product] with socially responsible benefits for [peo-
ple/animals/the environment]” (1 = there are no social norms to
buy this, 4 = there are moderate social norms to buy this, 7 = there
are strong social norms to buy this). On each page we provided
the respondent with a reminder definition and some examples
of what constituted socially responsible benefits for the envi-
ronment, for people, and for animals so they could be used as a
reference. Means from this study were used as an explicit mea-
sure of social norms.2 The study yielded a reasonable amount
of variance with means ranging from 2.41 to 5.65.
Certification. Certification was coded as present if the paper
mentioned that the product was labeled or described as being
certified.
Imputed year. We examined whether willingness to pay for
socially responsible products has changed over time. Some
papers specified the time period of the data collection while
others did not. To impute the data collection year for the studies
that did not specifically provide one, we averaged the difference
in number of years between data collection and publication for
all studies that supplied the dates. The average difference was
3.72 years. Thus, we subtracted 3.72 years from the date of pub-
lication for the remaining studies to ascribe an approximate data
collection date.
Elicitation method. Studies were coded as incentive compat-
ible if, as described in the WTP section, participants’ responses
had potential consequences for receiving or not receiving the
1 We thank a reviewer for the idea of including domain as an independent
variable.
2 Results of the social norm study are available upon request from the authors.
261
product. This included studies using real purchase data as well
as others such as auctions.
We also coded whether the method of elicitation allowed
participants to respond with negative changes in WTP. Papers
measuring incremental WTP do not always permit respondents
to indicate negative values. For instance, a question that asks,
“How much more would you be willing to pay if the product
were environmentally friendly?” does not allow a respondent
to provide a negative WTP even if the respondent is allowed
to respond in an open-ended format. Such a question is likely
to skew WTP upwards. Thus, we expect that methods that do
not allow negative WTP estimates will estimate higher WTP for
socially responsible products compared to methods that do.
Peer-reviewed. This is a dummy variable for whether the
paper was published in a peer-reviewed outlet (1) or not (0).
Publication bias is expected to produce significant positive
coefficients on this variable indicating that peer-reviewed papers
tended to have higher values of WTP and thus result in higher
likelihood of publication.
Papers used in the analyses and their main characteristics with
the dependent measures collected are available in Appendix A.
Data analysis
Many meta-analyses report Q-tests of homogeneity of the
effect sizes where the null hypothesis is that all of the effects sizes
are estimating the same population mean. Following Lipsey and
Wilson (2001), we conducted Cochran’s Q-tests on the percent-
age premium and the percentage willing to pay a premium and
using the appropriate Chi-square test rejected the null hypothe-
sis for both (χ2 = 1591.32 and 3508.74, respectively, p < .001).
This indicates that it is necessary to model the differences in
effect sizes using a set of design or independent variables.
We first ran a basic OLS regression on each of the dependent
variables. However, it is well-known that meta-analysis models
suffer from heteroscedasticity (Farley and Lehmann 1986). The
heteroscedasticity results from two sources. First, the effects are
estimated in each individual study with varying amounts of pre-
cision and different sample sizes. Second, multiple effects are
taken from the same study using similar methodology. Since
many of the papers had multiple measures of the effects sizes,
we followed the suggestion made by Bijmolt and Pieters (2001)
and used the complete set of measurements from each study
rather than a single measure representing all the results. To
account for the sources of heteroscedasticity, we also used a
random effects estimation approach which was among the best
procedures tested by Bijmolt and Pieters (2001) (the metareg
command from Stata; see Harbord and Higgins 2008). The
random effects model is an appealing specification because it
makes the assumption that the population effect sizes for dif-
ferent studies are randomly drawn from a normal distribution.
Since individual study variances were unavailable for most of
the observations, the weights used were the inverse of the logs
of the number of participants in the study. We used the log trans-
formation due to the highly varying number of participants in
the individual studies which ranged from 34 to over 100,000.
Of note, however, results from the OLS regression and from the
262 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

Table 3
Number of observations by independent variable for each dependent variable.
Variable Unconditional percent premium DV Proportion of participants DV Papers reporting both DVs
# of observations # of observations # of observations

Willingness to pay 163 107 96

Beneficiary
Environment 111 87 81
People 22 12 7
Animals 21 3 3
Multiple (environment + other) 9 5 5
Domain
Wood 64 55 52
Electronics 11 8 8
Food 50 16 14
Clothing 18 13 10
Other 20 15 12
Certified 97 68 63
Peer reviewed 145 93 83
Allow negative 86 31 28
Incentive compatible 32 4 2

weighted random effects model are substantively equivalent so
we only report the latter.3
To assess robustness of our findings, we ran the same
weighted random effects model using only the set of papers
that report both dependent measures. While the sample size for
this model is considerably smaller, use of this model helps to
understand whether discrepancies across dependent measures
are a function of differences in conceptualization across the two
dependent measures or whether differences may be due to the
papers included in the meta-regressions. Small discrepancies
arise when comparing results of the OLS and random effects
models to the random effects regressions using the smaller data
set which reports both DVs. These discrepancies are discussed
for the independent variables when applicable.
Empirical results
The unconditional percent premium across the 163 observa-
tions reporting this measure ranged from −24.3 percent to 87.1
percent.4 The mean difference in WTP over the base price is
16.8 percent, SD = 18.2 (t(163) = 11.78, p < .001). Thus, across
the 73 papers where we could get a measure of the uncondi-
tional percent premium, people are willing to pay a substantial
premium over the base price for a product with a socially respon-
sible element. We note that about 2/3rds of the studies focus on
the environment as the beneficiary of the socially responsible
element as seen in Table 3. This shows a lack of studies using
people, animals, or any combinations of the three.5
3 In addition, we ran the models using alternative estimation procedures
including correcting for heteroscedasticity only. Again, the results were subs-
tantively equivalent across methods.
4 We eliminated four observations whose percentages differences in WTP
were over five standard deviations above the mean.
5 We will discuss the research implications of this lack of studies later in the
paper.
Although the conditional percent premium (the percent pre-
mium among participants who are willing to pay a positive
amount) did not provide enough observations to conduct a full
analysis, we conducted an analysis of the difference between the
unconditional percent premium and the conditional percent pre-
mium among the available observations. Paired sample t tests
revealed that the conditional percent premium is on average
5.77 percent (SD = 3.69) greater than the unconditional percent
premium, t(53) = 11.48, p < .001.
The mean proportion of participants who were willing to pay
a premium across the 107 observations is 59.7 percent, SD = 21.0
(t(106) = 29.43, p < .001). This proportion ranged from 9.8 per-
cent to 92.6 percent. We note that about 80 percent of the studies
focus on the environment as the beneficiary of the socially
responsible element. Thus, as with studies measuring the per-
cent difference dependent variable, there is a significant lack of
studies using people, animals, or any combinations of the three.
Histograms of the distribution of the two dependent variables
are shown in Fig. 1.
The empirical results for the random effects models are shown
in Table 4.
Socially responsible benefit
Overall, results of the meta-analysis suggest that socially
responsible products which benefit the environment appear to
garner a lower WTP than products benefitting other beneficiar-
ies. In support of H1 and H2, results demonstrate that a greater
proportion of consumers are willing to pay a premium and the
average percentage premium is greater for products where the
social responsibility benefits humans compared to products that
benefit the environment (the omitted base). This is a robust
finding across all models and dependent measures.
The results suggest that people are willing to pay a signifi-
cantly greater percent premium for products benefitting animals
compared to products benefitting the environment. While
the results are directionally consistent for the proportion of
 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274 263

A: Unconditional Percent Premium in Willingness to Pay

35%
30%
25%

% of Sample
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
≤0 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100

B: Proportion of Participants Willing to Pay A Premium

30%
25%
% of Sample

20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
C: Bias Adjusted Unconditional Percent Premium in Willingness to Pay
35%
30%
25%
% of Sample

20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
≤0 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100

D: Bias Adjusted Proportion of Participants Willing to Pay A Premium

30%
25%
% of Sample

20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100

Fig. 1. Histograms of raw and bias adjusted results.

participants dependent measure, there is no significant increase
in the proportion of participants that are willing to pay a premium
for products benefitting animals compared to those benefitting
the environment. Of note, however, is that the number of observa-
tions for animals is much smaller in the data set for the proportion
of participants measure.
Products offering more than one socially responsible benefi-
ciary (i.e., the environment plus an additional beneficiary) show
no significant increase in WTP in either of the models using the
full data set, but demonstrate a significant increase in WTP in the
models using the observations that report both dependent meas-
ures. The discrepancy in significance for WTP across dependent
measures is likely due to the small number of observations using
multiple beneficiaries.
The results of the beneficiary are interesting for two reasons.
First, the biggest push for new products has been for those based
on environmental concerns such as the Clorox Green Works line
mentioned in the introduction. The current results suggest that
products that offer human benefits such as good working con-
ditions may be able to obtain a greater price premium and have
wider appeal than those focusing on animal or environmental
benefits. Second, as we noted from the results in Table 2, the
vast majority of research in this area has focused on environ-
mental benefits. More research is needed on WTP for products
that benefit humans, animals, or have multiple beneficiaries.
Social norms
The social norm variable was created to provide more con-
clusive evidence for whether social norms have a significant
impact on consumers’ WTP for socially responsible prod-
ucts. Unfortunately, the results of the meta-analysis again
264 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

Table 4
Results of weighted random effects regression.
Variable All observations Observations which report both dependent variables
Unconditional percent Proportion of participants Unconditional percent Proportion of participants
premium (n = 163) WTP a premium (n = 107) premium (n = 96) WTP a premium (n = 96)
Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)

Constant −447.79 (696.54) −1309.53 (927.17) 31.13 (644.61) −832.65 (866.20)

Social norms −1.81 (2.31) 6.67 (3.13)c −2.46 (2.17) 5.19 (2.92)d
Benefiary: people 14.32 (4.55)a 13.49 (6.33)c 18.75 (5.93)b 25.00 (7.97)b
Benefiary: animal 12.12 (5.25)c 10.73 (12.25) 17.94 (8.35)c 17.52 (11.22)
Benefiary: multiple 4.76 (6.17) 10.78 (9.62) 12.35 (6.71)d 16.25 (9.01)d
Domain: wood −0.55 (5.12) 2.33 (7.11) 5.15 (4.98) −0.93 (6.69)
Domain: electronics −12.04 (6.22)d −0.45 (8.13) −1.38 (5.63) −0.42 (7.57)
Domain: food 2.85 (4.79) 19.18 (7.37)c 5.86 (5.55) 11.09 (7.45)
Domain: clothing 12.24 (5.51)c 5.31 (7.43) 28.46 (6.16)a 2.89 (8.28)
Imputed year 0.24 (0.35) 0.68 (0.46) −0.00 (0.32) 0.44 (0.43)
Certified 7.02 (3.24)c 7.70 (5.11) 6.64 (3.68)d 9.88 (4.95)c
Peer-reviewed −21.14 (6.11)b −18.04 (6.99)b −11.26 (4.66)c −22.60 (6.25)a
Allows negatives −10.22 (2.97)a −17.54 (4.86)a −13.62 (3.62)a −26.11 (4.87)a
Incentive compatible 17.22 (3.60)a −3.46 (9.58) 19.40 (9.43)c 34.71 (12.67)b
Adj R2 0.268 0.337 0.473 0.448
a p ≤ .001.
b p ≤ .01.
c p ≤ .05.
d p ≤ .10.

demonstrate mixed findings. Against H3, there appears to be
no effect of social norms on the percent premium participants
are willing to pay. However, in support of H3, there is some
evidence that social norms positively influence the proportion
of consumers who are willing to pay a premium. The coefficient
for social norms is significant and positive for the model using
the full data set of 106 observations. Using the smaller data set,
however, this finding drops to marginal significance (p = .08).
These results suggest that retailers may be able to increase the
potential market size for socially responsible products if they are
able to encourage greater social norms or perceptions of social
norms for socially responsible products through advertisements
or visibility of purchases.
Domain
The results of the model suggest that clothing may elicit
a greater percent premium compared to “other” products (the
omitted base). None of the other categories were consistently
significantly different from the base category across both the
full model and the model using only observations that report
both dependent measures.
Certification
Certification has a positive effect on the percent premium
consumers are willing to pay; the implication from the results
in Table 4 is that it increases the premium by about 7 percent-
age points. There is also some evidence that it may increase
the proportion of consumers willing to pay a positive amount.
Although certification was not significant in the model using all
observations, it did predict a larger proportion of consumers will-
ing to pay a premium in the model among observations reporting
both dependent measures.
Elicitation method
As predicted, studies that allowed respondents to indicate a
negative WTP for socially responsible products had a signifi-
cantly lower WTP for socially responsible products compared
to studies that did not allow negative values. This finding was
robust across all models and both dependent measures. Thus,
studies that only provide positive options for participants are
likely biased upwards.
Papers using incentive compatible methods show a sig-
nificantly higher WTP for the percent premium dependent
measure. This finding was robust in both models and con-
trary to expectations. Part of this finding may be due to the
fact that incentive-compatible studies include real purchase
data. In the real world, prices for socially responsible prod-
ucts are often much greater than products that do not have
socially responsible characteristics. Additionally, it has been
suggested that auctions can increase consumers’ WTP due to
competitiveness among participants or participants becoming
psychologically committed once they have bid, even when auc-
tions are incentive compatible. (Ku, Galinsky, and Murnighan
2006; Ku, Malhotra, and Murnighan 2005). We see no signif-
icant differences for studies using incentive-compatibility in
the proportion of participants dependent measure in the mod-
els using all possible observations, but a positive and significant
coefficient for incentive-compatibility on the proportion of par-
ticipants dependent measure in the regression using the smaller
 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
data set. However, there are a very small number of observa-
tions that are incentive-compatible for this dependent measure
so results should be interpreted with caution.
Peer-reviewed
If there is publication bias, one would expect that published
papers would have a higher percentage WTP and a greater pro-
portion of consumers willing to pay a premium than those that
are rejected or otherwise unpublished. However, results from
the meta-analysis suggest otherwise. Papers that have not gone
through a peer review process report higher WTP than those
that have and report a significantly greater proportion of respon-
dents willing to pay a positive amount for socially responsible
products. Thus, there does appear to be evidence of publica-
tion bias, however it is in the unanticipated direction. Of note,
these results are in line with the findings of Lagerkvist and
Hess (2011) who attribute this finding to the imposition of
more rigorous techniques of eliciting WTP in peer-reviewed
papers.
Adjusting for researcher method choices
Albers, Mantrala, and Sridhar (2010) and Tellis (1988) sug-
gest that mean effect sizes should be adjusted for the significant
effects of methodological choices that researchers make that are
independent of the underlying theoretical explanations for the
effect sizes. They call these “bias”-adjusted effect sizes. As a
result, we corrected the effect sizes in the following way. We
adjusted the unconditional percent difference in willingness to
pay by the parameters from Table 4 of incentive compatibil-
ity and whether the study allowed for negative responses and
the proportion willing to pay a premium effect size only for
the latter. The bias-adjusted percentage difference in willing-
ness to pay decreases from 16.8 percent to 14.8 percent and the
proportion willing to pay a premium decreases from 59.7 per-
cent to 51.6 percent (Fig. 1 shows the bias-adjusted histograms).
Although both are significantly different at the p < .01 level,
the bias adjusted numbers are still within the range of the raw
means.
Conclusions
Our meta-analysis included studies from 80 papers with
174 unique observations. It is, to our knowledge, the largest
meta-analysis on WTP for socially responsible products and the
only meta-analysis that looks at WTP across beneficiary and
product type. By including such a diverse set of papers, the
results of our meta-analysis provide important implications for
retailers.
First, overall, people are willing to pay a positive and sig-
nificant premium for socially responsible products. On average,
socially responsible products demand a 16.8 percent premium
over products without socially responsible features. Further,
almost 60 percent of people indicate that they are willing
to pay some type of premium for these products. Because
we excluded products that conferred any type of private
265
benefit, the results suggest that the majority of consumers are
willing to pay extra for benefits that do not directly benefit
themselves.
In terms of the relative value of socially responsible products,
results from both dependent variables suggest that manufac-
turers’ historical emphasis on the development of products
that demonstrate an environmental benefit may be subopti-
mal for profitability as products with human beneficiaries
obtain a greater price premium across both types of depend-
ent measures. All else equal, it appears retailers may be able
to garner a higher price premium for products that promote
good labor practices and benefits such as fair trade com-
pared to those promoting environmental benefits. Additionally,
retailers may attract more consumers by advertising prod-
ucts that they carry which confer socially responsible benefits
for people opposed to products conferring benefits on the
environment.
While the results of the social norm variable are somewhat
mixed, they are promising. The results suggests that to the extent
retailers can influence social norms via advertisements, visibil-
ity of purchases, or other means, they may be able to increase
the potential market size for the socially responsible products
they carry. This finding is noteworthy in light of the limitations
of the social norm measure. The method used to elicit social
norms had many advantages including being a natural mea-
sure of consumers’ beliefs of the strength of social norms for
each specific product listed with the beneficiary (people, ani-
mals, environment or multiple). However, the measure of social
norms had multiple sources of noise which might have con-
tributed to the relatively weak results. To elicit social norms,
we used an online sample of U.S. respondents. This is likely a
different population than the populations used in many of the
individual studies, possibly differing in important demographic
factors. Additionally, the social norm variable was elicited at
one specific time (in 2013). Social norms may vary over time,
especially if social responsibility evolves in terms of awareness
and popularity. Given these limitations, the significance of the
social norms variable on the proportion of participants WTP is
encouraging. Future research would benefit to better understand
the role that social norms plays in WTP for socially responsible
products.
Our meta-analysis does have limitations. First, with the broad
area of socially responsible products, it is likely that not every
study on the topic was included in our meta-analysis. However,
we did have a relatively large sample size and feel that the papers
are broad and representative. Another limitation was the neces-
sary assumption that all the methods of eliciting WTP across
the studies were measuring the same underlying construct. As
mentioned in the WTP section above, there are multiple con-
ceptualizations of WTP. Many, if not most of the studies, did
not provide enough information to ascertain which definition
of WTP they believed they were eliciting. Further, even if
researchers believed they were getting one meaning of WTP
(e.g., the indifference point), it is difficult to know if respondents
were interpreting the question the same way.
Another limitation of this meta-analysis offers insights for
future research. Our meta-analysis had a limited number of
266 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
observations for some of the independent variables, particularly
for the proportion of participants dependent measure. This con-
tributed to difficulty in interpreting discrepancies across models.
The variables particularly affected by the small number of
observations were the animal and multiple beneficiary types
and the incentive-compatible dummy. As noted by Farley,
Lehmann, and Mann (1988), it is possible to use a meta-analysis
as the basis for designing other studies to have maximum
impact on knowledge generation in a field. The limitations
caused by the small number of observations for these vari-
ables identify fruitful areas for future research. While we did
not perform the analysis suggested by Farley et al., it is clear
from the data presented in Table 2 and from the discrepan-
cies across models that there are understudied areas within the
social responsibility literature. This meta-analysis highlights
the need for research on WTP for socially responsible prod-
ucts that benefit animals, or a combination of beneficiaries as
well as studies which compare WTP across different benefici-
aries. Additionally, more research using incentive-compatible
methods, especially when exploring potential market size, is
needed.
The results of this meta-analysis also suggest that research
is necessary to investigate the mechanisms underlying the inde-
pendent variables affecting the variation in WTP. Research is
needed to understand the underlying reason that consumers are
willing to pay more for products that benefit other humans
compared to those that benefit the environment. A simple inter-
pretation may be that people view benefits to other people as
more important and are therefore more willing to pay a premium.
However, alternative reasons are also plausible. For instance,
Gleim et al. (2013) found that a major impediment of WTP
for environmentally friendly products was consumers’ belief
of a lack of expertise. Perhaps consumers feel a greater sense
of expertise in understanding labor conditions and fair wages
than they do about ways to help the environment. A simi-
lar, but distinct explanation could be in regard to perceived
consumer effectiveness (Balderjahn 1988; Roberts 1996). It
is possible that consumers feel as though the difference they
make when choosing socially responsible products that bene-
fit other people makes more of an impact than purchases that
benefit the environment. Research that can identify the cause
of this disparity in WTP could introduce useful interventions to
increase WTP for socially responsible products that benefit the
environment.
This meta-analysis synthesizes the results of a large stream
of literature conducted over the last few decades and provides
important insights. We hope that this paper provides a roadmap
for future research attempting to better understand consumers’
WTP for socially responsible products.
Appendix A. Summary of included papers and main
characteristics
Authors Peer Product Domain Social Beneficiary Certified Year of data Incentive Allows Proportion of Unconditional
reviewed norm collection compatible negative participants DV percent
WTP (percent) premium DV
Aguilar and Cai Yes Bedside table Wood 3.30 Environment Yes 2006.3 No No 34.0 20.7
(2010) Yes Bedside table Wood 3.30 Environment Yes 2006.3 No No 50.0 39.3
Aguilar and Vlosky Yes Dining room set Wood 3.26 Environment Yes 1995 No No 61.3 16.8
(2007) Yes Kitchen Wood 3.61 Environment Yes 1995 No No 56.9 10.9
remodeling
Yes New home Wood 4.98 Environment Yes 1995 No No 65.5 23.0
Yes Chair Wood 3.21 Environment Yes 1995 No No 63.3 13.2
Yes Dining room set Wood 3.26 Environment Yes 2005 No No 68.0 12.7
Yes Kitchen Wood 3.61 Environment Yes 2005 No No 60.7 12.1
remodeling

S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

Yes New home Wood 4.98 Environment Yes 2005 No No 71.4 27.1
Yes Chair Wood 3.21 Environment Yes 2005 No No 63.0 15.3
Akkucuk (2011) Yes Auto part Electronics 3.33 Environment No 2007.3 No Yes 31.0 −24.3
Yes Cellular phone Electronics 3.83 Environment No 2007.3 No Yes 23.0 −21.6
Yes Furniture Other 3.60 Environment No 2007.3 No Yes 26.0 −13.9
Yes Nonsanitary paper Wood 4.61 Environment No 2007.3 No Yes 22.0 −20.4
product
Yes Printer fax Electronics 3.72 Environment No 2007.3 No Yes 31.0 −13.7
Yes Sanitary paper Wood 4.15 Environment No 2007.3 No Yes 23.0 −24.1
product
Yes Tire Other 4.17 Environment No 2007.3 No Yes 19.0 −11.9
Anderson and Hansen (2003) No CD rack Wood 2.41 Environment Yes 1999.3 No Yes – 23.6
Anderson and Hansen (2004) Yes Plywood Wood 3.57 Environment Yes 2002 Yes No 36.9 –
Basu and Hicks Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2004.3 No No – 47.0
(2008) Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2004.3 No No – 57.0
Bennett (1997) Yes Eggs Food 4.53 Animals No 1993.3 No No 86.0 30.7
Bennett and Larson (1996) Yes Eggs Food 4.53 Animals No 1992.3 No Yes 68.0 18.0
Berghoef and Dodds (2011) Yes Wine Food 3.02 Environment Yes 2009 No No 78.0 8.3
Bjørner, Hansen, and Yes Paper towels Wood 4.96 Environment Yes 2000.3 Yes Yes – 1.9
Russell (2004) Yes Toilet paper Wood 4.44 Environment Yes 2000.3 Yes Yes – 18.1
Brouhle and Khanna Yes Paper towels Wood 4.96 Environment Yes 2008.3 Yes Yes – 39.0
(2012) Yes Toilet paper Wood 4.44 Environment Yes 2008.3 Yes Yes – 35.2
Camacho-Cuena et al. Yes Office table Wood 3.24 Environment No 2000.3 Yes Yes – 20.5
(2004) Yes Office table Wood 3.24 Environment No 2000.3 Yes Yes – 21.3
Yes Office table Wood 3.24 Environment No 2000.3 No Yes – 22.1
Yes Office table Wood 3.24 Environment No 2000.3 No Yes – 23.3
Carlsson, Frykblom, Yes Chicken Food 4.99 Animals No 2003.3 No No −4.8
and Lagerkvist Yes Minced beef Food 4.23 Animals No 2003.3 No No 66.0 9.0
(2007a)
Carlsson, Frykblom, Yes Eggs Food 4.53 Animals No 2003.3 No No – 20.0
and Lagerkvist Yes Eggs Food 4.53 Animals No 2003.3 No No – 54.9
(2007b)

267
 268
Authors Peer Product Domain Social Beneficiary Certified Year of data Incentive Allows Proportion of Unconditional
reviewed norm collection compatible negative participants DV percent premium
WTP (percent) DV
Carlsson, Garcia, and Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2006.3 No Yes – 34.0
Löfgren (2010) Yes Coffee Food 4.25 Environment Yes 2006.3 No Yes – 34.9
Carter (2009) Yes Music CDs Other 3.23 People No 2005.3 No Yes 66.0 –
Casadesus-Masanell et al. (2009) Yes Flannel shirt Clothing 3.39 Environment Yes 2005.3 Yes No – 10.6
and people
Cha, Chun, and Yes Wood flooring Wood 3.87 Environment Yes 2008 No No 79.4 7.6
Yeo-Chang (2009) Yes Copier paper Wood 4.87 Environment Yes 2008 No No 79.4 9.8
Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 2008 No No 79.4 6.8
Yes Wood frame Wood 3.88 Environment Yes 2008 No No 79.4 11.6

S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

Cranfield et al. (2010) Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People No 2006.3 No Yes – 7.4
Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2006.3 No Yes – 18.5
De Pelsmacker, Driesen, and Rayp (2005) Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2001.3 No Yes – 10.2
Dickson (2001) Yes Man’s dress shirt Clothing 3.39 People No 1997.3 No Yes – 36.0
Didier and Lucie (2008) Yes Chocolate Food 3.69 People Yes 2004.3 Yes Yes – 87.1
Drozdenko, Jensen, and Coelho (2011) Yes MP3 player Electronics 2.72 Environment No 2007.3 No No – 9.5
Ellis, McCracken, and Skuza (2012) Yes Cotton T-shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2008.3 Yes Yes 74.0 28.1
Erwann (2009) Yes Fish Food 4.34 Environment No 2006 No No 80.8 10.9
Forsyth, Haley, and Kozak (1999) Yes Wood products Wood 4.37 Environment No 1995.3 No No 67.3 5.4
Fussell (2011) No Products Other 4.82 People No 2009.5 No Yes 82.9 9.5
No Products Other 4.82 People No 2009.5 No Yes 92.4 10.8
No Products Other 4.82 People No 2009.5 No Yes 91.0 13.6
No Products Other 4.82 People No 2009.5 No Yes 92.6 14.5
Galarraga and Markendya (2004) Yes Coffee Food 4.42 Environment Yes 2000.3 Yes Yes – 11.3
and people
Grönroos and Bowyer Yes Lumber Wood 3.70 Environment Yes 1997 No No 24.0
(1999) Yes Lumber Wood 3.70 Environment Yes 1997 No No 36.0
Guagnano (2001) Yes Paper towels Wood 4.96 Environment No 1997.3 No No 86.0 32.1
Ha-Brookshire and Yes Cotton shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2007.3 No No 57.0 17.3
Norum (2011) Yes Cotton shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2007.3 No No 54.9 18.5
Yes Cotton shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2007.3 No No 55.1 18.6
Hertel, Scruggs, and Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People No 2006 No No 75.0 –
Heidkamp (2009) Yes Sweaters Clothing 3.81 People No 2006 No No 68.0 –
Howard and Allen (2008) Yes Strawberries Food 3.86 People No 2006 No No 87.4 68.0
Hurley, Miller, and Kliebenstein (2006) Yes Pork loin chops Food 2.96 Environment No 2002.3 Yes Yes 62.0 22.4
Hustvedt, Peterson, Yes Wool gloves Clothing 2.76 Environment Yes 2004.3 No Yes – 1.8
and Chen (2008) Yes Wool gloves Clothing 3.41 Animals No 2004.3 No Yes – 2.8
Jensen et al. (2003) Yes Oak shelving Wood 3.57 Environment Yes 1999.3 No No 42.2 14.9
board
Authors Peer Product Domain Social Beneficiary Certified Year of data Incentive Allows Proportion of Unconditional
reviewed norm collection compatible negative participants DV percent premium
WTP (percent) DV
Jensen et al. (2004) Yes Oak chair Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 2000.3 No No 31.0 8.0
Yes Oak shelving Wood 3.57 Environment Yes 2000.3 No No 31.0 13.0
board
Yes Oak table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 2000.3 No No 31.0 5.6
Kang et al. (2012) Yes Hotel rooms Other 3.33 Environment No 2008.3 No No 30.0 3.8
Kruger (2010) No Printer paper Wood 4.87 Environment Yes 2006.3 No No – 37.0
Kuminoff, Zhang, and Rudi (2010) Yes Hotel rooms Other 3.33 Environment Yes 2006.3 Yes Yes – 19.0
Langen (2011) Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2007.3 No Yes – 12.9

S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

Lee et al. (2007) Yes Wood products Wood 4.37 Environment Yes 2005 No Yes 62.0 6.8
Levinson (2010) No T-shirts Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2006.3 No No 64.0 46.0
No T-shirts Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2006.3 No No 75.0 52.0
No T-shirts Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2006.3 No No 79.0 54.0
No T-shirts Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2006.3 No No 81.0 62.0
Liljenstolpe (2008) Yes Pork fillet Food 4.24 Animals No 2004.3 No Yes – 13.0
Yes Pork fillet Food 4.24 Animals No 2004.3 No Yes – 15.0
Yes Pork fillet Food 4.24 Animals No 2004.3 No Yes – 19.0
Yes Pork fillet Food 4.24 Animals No 2004.3 No Yes – 20.0
Lin (2010) Yes Cotton apparel Clothing 4.38 Environment No 2007 No Yes 52.7 –
Loureiro (2003) Yes Wine Food 3.02 Environment No 2001 No No 56.5 1.3
Loureiro and Lotade Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People No 2002 No No 84.9 3.3
(2005) Yes Coffee Food 4.42 Environment No 2003 No No 84.9 3.1
and animals
Loureiro, McCluskey, and Mittelhammer (2002) Yes Apples Food 3.94 Environment Yes 1998.3 No Yes – 5.0
Mahé (2010) Yes Bananas Food 3.76 People Yes 2006 No No 86.0 –
Manaktola and Jauhari (2007) Yes Hotel rooms Other 3.33 Environment No 2003.3 No No 15.0 –
McVittie, Moran, and Nevison (2006) No Chicken Food 4.99 Animals No 2002.3 No No – 48.5
Michaud and Llerena Yes Recycled single Electronics 3.53 Environment No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 1.4
(2011) use cameras
Yes Remanufactured Electronics 3.20 Environment No 2007.3 Yes Yes – −16.4
single use cameras
Michaud, Llerena, and Yes Roses (flowers) Other 3.70 Environment Yes 2008.3 Yes Yes – 64.0
Joly (2012) Yes Roses (flowers) Other 3.70 Environment Yes 2008.3 Yes Yes – 84.0
Millar and Baloglu Yes Hotel rooms Other 3.33 Environment Yes 2007.3 No Yes 9.8 0.2
(2011) Yes Hotel rooms Other 3.33 Environment Yes 2007.3 No Yes 18.0 1.1
Mohamed and Ibrahim (2007) Yes Wood products Wood 4.37 Environment Yes 2003.3 No No 38.0 5.5
Moon et al. (2002) Yes Agriculture Food 5.13 Environment No 1995 No No 83.0 18.0

269
 270
Authors Peer Product Domain Social Beneficiary Certified Year of data Incentive Allows Proportion of Unconditional
reviewed norm collection compatible negative participants DV percent premium
WTP (percent) DV
Moosmayer (2012) Yes Athletic shoes Clothing 3.91 Environment Yes 2008.3 No Yes 69.0 19.5
and people
Yes Athletic shoes Clothing 3.91 Environment Yes 2008.3 No Yes 77.0 41.0
and people
Yes Mobile phone Electronics 3.91 Environment Yes 2008.3 No Yes 47.0 11.3
and people
Yes Mobile phone Electronics 3.91 Environment Yes 2008.3 No Yes 35.0 23.7
and people
Muñoz and Rivera (2002) No Hotel rooms Other 3.33 Environment No 2002 No Yes 40.0 –
Norwood and Lusk Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 9.5

S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

(2011) Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 12.2
Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 25.2
Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 27.9
Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 30.6
Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 55.8
Oleson et al. (2010) Yes Salmon Food 3.93 Animals Yes 2006.3 Yes Yes – 16.9
Ozanne, Bigsby, and Yes Clear wood for Wood 3.57 Environment Yes 1997 No No 78.3 22.3
Vlosky (1999) shelving
Yes Outdoor furniture Wood 3.45 Environment Yes 1997 No No 67.9 16.5
set
Yes Chair Wood 3.21 Environment Yes 1997 No No 73.9 17.6
Yes Kitchen Wood 3.61 Environment Yes 1997 No No 74.5 18.4
remodeling
Yes Wood in new Wood 4.98 Environment Yes 1997 No No 74.4 21.1
home
Ozanne and Vlosky Yes Dining room set Wood 3.26 Environment Yes 1995 No No 61.0 14.2
(1997) Yes Kitchen Wood 3.61 Environment Yes 1995 No No 57.0 11.0
remodeling
Yes New home Wood 4.98 Environment Yes 1995 No No 64.0 4.4
Yes Chair Wood 3.21 Environment Yes 1995 No No 62.0 14.4
Yes Studgrade stud Wood 2.89 Environment Yes 1995 No No 71.0 18.7
Ozanne and Vlosky Yes Dining room set Wood 3.26 Environment Yes 2000 No No 66.0 14.2
(2003) Yes Kitchen Wood 3.61 Environment Yes 2000 No No 57.0 11.0
remodeling
Yes New home Wood 4.98 Environment Yes 2000 No No 67.0 4.4
Yes Chair Wood 3.21 Environment Yes 2000 No No 63.0 11.7
Yes Studgrade stud Wood 2.89 Environment Yes 2000 No No 73.0 17.3
Pajari, Peck, and No Wood furniture Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1995.3 No Yes 50.9 1.4
Rametsteiner (1999) No Wood furniture Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1995.3 No Yes 42.0 1.6
No Wood furniture Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1995.3 No Yes 58.1 2.4
No Wood furniture Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1995.3 No Yes 66.4 3.4
No Wood furniture Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1995.3 No Yes 62.3 4.9
Authors Peer Product Domain Social Beneficiary Certified Year of data Incentive Allows Proportion of Unconditional
reviewed norm collection compatible negative participants DV percent premium
WTP (percent) DV
Prasad et al. (2004) Yes Athletic socks Clothing 3.29 People Yes 2002 Yes No 30.0 –
Rode, Hogarth, and Yes Units Other 3.50 People Yes 2004.3 Yes Yes – 24.4
Le Menestrel (2008) Yes Units Other 3.50 People Yes 2004.3 Yes Yes – 26.4
Yes Units Other 3.50 People Yes 2004.3 Yes Yes – 64.8
Roheim, Asche, and Santos (2011) Yes Alaskan pollack Food 4.34 Environment Yes 2007.3 Yes Yes – 14.2
Rousu and Corrigan Yes Bananas Food 3.76 People No 2004.3 Yes Yes – 9.3
(2008) Yes Chocolate Food 3.69 People No 2004.3 Yes Yes – 19.2
Saphores et al. (2007) Yes Cell phones Electronics 3.83 Environment Yes 2004 No No 69.3 2.5
Yes Personal Electronics 3.76 Environment Yes 2004 No No 70.8 2.3
computers

S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274

Schollenberg (2012) Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2008.3 Yes Yes – 38.0
Shen (2012) Yes Battery Electronics 4.48 Environment Yes 2007 No No 80.9 9.5
Yes Building material Other 4.85 Environment Yes 2007 No No 83.4 9.5
Yes Furniture Other 3.60 Environment Yes 2007 No No 86.3 9.5
Yes Glass tableware Other 2.78 Environment Yes 2007 No No 77.8 8.7
Yes Recycled paper Wood 5.65 Environment Yes 2007 No No 79.5 8.8
Yes Soft drink Food 2.99 Environment Yes 2007 No No 76.6 8.8
Thompson et al. Yes Plywood Wood 3.57 Environment Yes 2006.3 No Yes – 16.9
(2010) Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.60 Environment Yes 2006.3 No Yes – 0.4
Tonsor, Olynk, and Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2005.3 No Yes – 11.2
Wolf (2009) Yes Pork Food 4.24 Animals No 2005.3 No Yes – 42.3
Trudel and Cotte Yes Coffee Food 4.42 Environment Yes 2005.3 No Yes – 16.8
(2009) and people
Yes Coffee Food 4.42 Environment Yes 2005.3 No Yes – 28.9
and people
Yes Cotton T-shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2005.3 No Yes – 2.0
Yes Cotton T-shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2005.3 No Yes – 3.4
Yes Cotton T-shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2005.3 No Yes – 5.8
Yes Cotton T-shirt Clothing 3.97 Environment No 2005.3 No Yes – 13.5
Van Kempen et al. (2009) Yes Firewood Wood 3.86 Environment Yes 2005.3 No No 73.0 21.0
Veisten (2002) Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1998.3 No No 32.0 1.0
Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1998.3 No No 39.0 1.6
Veisten (2007) Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1997 No No 31.2 2.0
Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1997 No No 39.8 16.0
Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1998 No No 38.1 6.0
Yes Wood dining table Wood 4.06 Environment Yes 1998 No No 37.1 7.5
Xu et al. (2012) Yes Seafood Food 4.34 Environment No 2009 No No 67.0 4.9
Yang et al. (2012) Yes Coffee Food 4.57 People Yes 2008 No No 89.0 22.7
Yip, Knowler, and No Salmon Food 4.34 Environment Yes 2008.3 No Yes – 3.9
Haider (2012) No Salmon Food 4.34 Environment Yes 2008.3 No Yes – 9.8
Yue, Hurley, and Yes Plants Other 4.24 Environment No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 13.9
Anderson (2011) Yes Plants Other 4.24 Environment No 2007.3 Yes Yes – 34.0

271
272 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
References
Aguilar, Francisco X. and Zhen Cai (2010), “Conjoint Effect of Environmental
Labeling, Disclosure of Forest of Origin and Price on Consumer Prefer-
ences for Wood Products in the US and UK,” Ecological Economics, 70
(December), 308–16.
Aguilar, Francisco X. and Richard P. Vlosky (2007), “Consumer Willingness
to Pay Price Premiums for Environmentally Certified Wood Products in the
U.S.,” Forest Policy and Economics, 9 (May), 1100–12.
Akkucuk, Ulas (2011), “Combining Purchase Probabilities and Willingness to
Pay Measures: A Case on Recycled Products,” European Journal of Social
Sciences, 23 (3), 353–61.
Albers, Sönke, Murali K. Mantrala and Shrihari Sridhar (2010), “Personal
Selling Elasticities: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47
(October), 840–53.
Anderfer, Veronika A. and Ulf Liebe (2012), “Research on Fair Trade
Consumption—A Review,” Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 415–35.
Anderson, Roy C. and Eric N. Hansen (2003), “Segmenting Consumers of
Ecolabeled Forest Products,” in An Analysis of Consumer Response to
Environmentally Certified, Ecolabeled Forest Products, dissertation pre-
sented May 9, 2003, at Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, (accessed
January 25, 2013), [http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/
1957/7526/Anderson Roy C.pdf?sequence=1].
and Eric N. Hansen (2004), “Determining Consumer
Preferences for Ecolabeled Forest Products: An Experimental Approach,”
Journal of Forestry, 102 (June), 28–32.
Assmus, Gert, John U. Farley and Donald R. Lehmann (1984), “How Advertising
Affects Sales: Meta-analysis of Econometric Results,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 21 (February), 65–74.
Balderjahn, Ingo (1988), “Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes as
Predictors of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns,” Journal of
Business Research, 17 (1), 51–6.
Basu, Arnab K. and Robert L. Hicks (2008), “Label Performance and the
Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Cross-national Perspective,”
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32 (September), 470–8.
Bennett, Richard (1997), “Farm Animal Welfare and Food Policy,” Food Policy,
22 (August), 281–8.
Bennett, Richard and Douglas Larson (1996), “Contingent Valuation of the
Perceived Benefits of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory
Survey,” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47 (2), 224–35.
Berghoef, Naomi and Rachel Dodds (2011), “Potential for Sustainability Eco-
labeling in Ontario’s Wine Industry,” International Journal of Wine Business
Research, 23 (4), 298–317.
Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. and Rik G.M. Pieters (2001), “Meta-analysis in Market-
ing When Studies Contain Multiple Measurements,” Marketing Letters, 12,
157–69.
Bijmolt, Tammo H.A., Harald van Heerde and Rik G.M. Pieters (2005), “New
Empirical Generalizations on the Determinants of Price Elasticity,” Journal
of Marketing Research, (May), 141–56.
Bjørner, Thomas Bue, Lars Gårn Hansen and Clifford S. Russell (2004), “Envi-
ronmental Labeling and Consumers’ Choice—An Empirical Analysis of
the Effect of the Nordic Swan,” Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 47 (May), 411–34.
Brouhle, Keith and Madhu Khanna (2012), “Determinants of Participation
Versus Consumption in the Nordic Swan Eco-labeled Market,” Ecological
Economics, 73 (January), 142–51.
BusinessWeek (2012), “Levi’s Has a New Color for Blue Jeans: Green,” (October
22–28), 26–27.
Cai, Zhen and Francisco X. Aguilar (2013), “Meta-analysis of Consumer’s
Willingness-to-Pay Premiums for Certified Wood Products,” Journal of For-
est Economics, 19 (January), 15–31.
Camacho-Cuena, Eva, Aurora García-Gallego, Nikolaos Georgantzís and Ger-
ardo Sabater-Grande (2004), “An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical
WTP for a Recyclable Product,” Environmental and Resource Economics,
27 (March), 313–35.
Carlsson, Fredrik, Peter Frykblom and Carl Johan Lagerkvist (2007a), “Farm
Animal Welfare Testing for Market Failure,” Journal of Agriculture and
Applied Economics, 39 (April), 61–73.
, and
(2007b), “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare: Mobile
Abattoirs Versus Transportation to Slaughter,” European Review of Agricul-
tural Economics, 34 (September), 321–44.
´ Löfgren (2010), “Conformity and
Carlsson, Fredrik, Jorge H. Garcia and Åsa
the Demand for Environmental Goods,” Environmental and Resource Eco-
nomics, 47 (November), 407–21.
Carter, Robert E. (2009), “Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Ethical Informa-
tion?,” Social Responsibility Journal, 5 (4), 464–77.
Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon, Michael Crooke, Forest Reinhardt and Vishal
Vasishth (2009), “Households’ Willingness to Pay for ‘Green’ Goods: Evi-
dence from Patagonia’s Introduction of Organic Cotton Sportswear,” Journal
of Economics & Management Strategy, 18 (March), 203–33.
Cha, Junhee, Jung-Nam Chun and Youn Yeo-Chang (2009), “Consumer Will-
ingness to Pay Price Premium for Certified Wood Products in South Korea,”
Journal of Korean Forest Society, 98 (2), 203–11.
Clifford, Stephanie and Andrew Martin (April 21, 2011), “As Consumers Cut
Spending, ‘Green’ Products Lose Allure,” The New York Times, (retrieved
December 15, 2012), [www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/business/energy-
environment/22green.html? r=1%3Famp;pagewanted=all].
Cranfield, John, Spencer Henson, James Northey and Oliver Masakure (2010),
“An Assessment of Consumer Preference for Fair Trade Coffee in Toronto
and Vancouver,” Agribusiness, 26 (2), 307–25.
De Pelsmacker, Patrick, Liesbeth Driesen and Glenn Rayp (2005), “Do Con-
sumers Care About Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee,”
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (2), 363–86.
Dickson, Marsha A. (2001), “Utility of No Sweat Labels for Apparel Consumers:
Profiling Label Users and Predicting Their Purchases,” Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 35 (1), 96–119.
Didier, Tagbata and Serieix Lucie (2008), “Measuring Consumer’s Willing-
ness to Pay for Organic and Fair Trade Products,” International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 32 (September), 479–90.
Ding, Min (2007), “An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May), 214–23.
Dost, Florian and Robert Wilken (2012), “Measuring Willingness to Pay as
a Range: When Should We Care?,” International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 29, 148–66.
Drozdenko, Ronald, Marlene Jensen and Donna Coelho (2011), “Pricing of
Green Products: Premiums Paid, Consumer Characteristics and Incentives,”
International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences, 4 (1),
106–16.
Ellis, Joan L., Vivki A. McCracken and Nathan Skuza (2012), “Insights into Will-
ingness to Pay for Organic Cotton Apparel,” Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 16 (3), 290–305.
Erwann, Charles (2009), “Eco-labelling: A New Deal for a More Durable
Fishery Management?,” Ocean & Coastal Management, 52 (May), 250–
7.
Fair Trade USA (2012), (retrieved January 23, 2012), [http://fairtradeusa.org/
certification].
Farley, John U. and Donald R. Lehmann (1986), Meta-analysis in Marketing,
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Farley, John U., Donald R. Lehmann and Lane H. Mann (1988), “Designing
the Next Study for Maximum Impact,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35
(November), 496–501.
Forsyth, Keith, David Haley and Robert Kozak (1999), “Will Consumers Pay
More for Certified Wood Products?,” Journal of Forestry, 97 (February),
18–22.
Fussell, Rachel (2011), “Consumer’s Willingness to Pay a Price Pre-
mium for Living Wage Products,” paper presented at Undergraduate
Research Symposium, May 2011, at Duke University, Durham, NC,
(accessed January 25, 2013), [https://econ.duke.edu/uploads/media items/
fussell-rachel-2011-duke-economic-symposium.original.pdf].
Galarraga, Ibon and Anil Markendya (2004), “Economic Techniques to Estimate
the Demand for Sustainable Products: A Case Study for Fair Trade and
Organic Coffee in the United Kingdom,” Economía Agraria y Recursos
Naturales, 4 (7), 109–34.
Gallastegui, Ibon Galarraga (2002), “The Use of Eco-labels: A Review of the
Literature,” European Environment, 12 (6), 316–31.
 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
Giving USA (2013), “Giving USA 2013 Report Highlights,” (retrieved),
[http://www.givingusareports.org/].
Gleim, Mark R., Jeffery S. Smith, Demetra Andrews and J. Joseph Cronin Jr.
(2013), “Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to
Green Consumption,” Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 44–61.
Grönroos, Johanna C.M. and Jim L. Bowyer (1999), “Assessment of the Mar-
ket Potential for Environmentally Certified Wood Products in New Homes
in Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago,” Forest Products Society, 49 (June),
28–34.
Guagnano, Gregory A. (2001), “Altruism and Market-Like Behavior: An Anal-
ysis of Willingness to Pay for Recycled Paper Products,” Population and
Environment, 22 (March), 425–38.
Ha-Brookshire, Jung E. and Pamela S. Norum (2011), “Willingness to Pay
for Socially Responsible Products: Case of Cotton Apparel,” Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 28 (5), 344–53.
Hanssens, Dominique (2009), Empirical Generalizations About Marketing
Impact: What We Have Learned from Academic Research, Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science Institute.
Harbord, Roger M. and Julian P.T. Higgins (2008), “Meta-regression in Stata,”
The Stata Journal, 8 (4), 493–519.
Hauser, John R. and Glen L. Urban (1986), “The Value Priority Hypotheses
for Consumer Budget Plans,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (March),
446–62.
Hertel, Shareen, Lyle Scruggs and C. Patrick Heidkamp (2009), “Human Rights
and Public Opinion: From Attitudes to Action,” Political Science Quarterly,
124 (3), 443–59.
Howard, Philip and Patricia Allen (2008), “Consumer Willingness to Pay for
Domestic ‘Fair Trade’: Evidence from the United States,” Renewable Agri-
culture and Food Systems, 23 (September), 235–42.
Hurley, Sean P., Douglas J. Miller and James B. Kliebenstein (2006), “Estimating
Willingness to Pay Using a Polychotomous Choice Function: An Application
to Pork Products with Environmental Attributes,” Journal of Agricultural
and Resource Economics, 31 (August), 301–17.
Hustvedt, Gwendolyn, Hikaru Hanawa Peterson and Yun-Ju Chen (2008),
“Labelling Wool Products for Animal Welfare and Environmental Impact,”
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32 (September), 427–37.
ISO (2010), Guidance on Social Responsibility (ISO 26000:2010). Berlin.
Jedidi, Kamel and Sharan Jagpal (2009), “Willingness to Pay: Measurement and
Managerial Implications,” in Handbook of Pricing Research in Marketing,
Rao Vithala. R. ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar (Chapter 2)
Jedidi, Kamel and Z. John Zhang (2002), “Augmenting Conjoint Analy-
sis to Estimate Consumer Reservation Price,” Management Science, 48,
1350–68.
Jensen, Kim, Paul M. Jakus, Burton English and Jamey Menard (2003), “Market
Participation and Willingness to Pay for Environmentally Certified Prod-
ucts,” Forest Science, 49 (August), 632–41.
, , and
(2004), “Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Eco-
certified Wood Products,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
36 (December), 617–26.
Kang, Kyung Ho, Laura Stein, Cindy Yoonjoung Heo and Seoki Lee (2012),
“Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Green Initiatives of the Hotel Industry,”
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31 (June), 564–72.
Karnani, Aneel (June 14, 2012), “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsi-
bility,” The Wall Street Journal, (retrieved January 12, 2013), [http://online.
wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870333800 4575230112664504890.
html].
Klein, Paul (November 12, 2012), “Moving Beyond CSR: The Business of Social
Change,” Forbes, (retrieved January 14, 2013), [http://www.forbes.com/
sites/csr/2012/11/12/moving-beyond-csr-the-business-of-social-change/].
Kruger, Christopher Reinhard (2010), “Public Preferences for SFM: Case Stud-
ies in Tenure Policy and forest Certification,” thesis submitted Spring 2010,
Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Ku, Gillian, Adam D. Galinsky and J. Keith Murnighan (2006), “Starting Low
But Ending High: A Reversal of the Anchoring Effect in Auctions,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (6), 975–86.
Ku, Gillian, Deepak Malhotra and J. Keith Murnighan (2005), “Towards a Com-
petitive Arousal Model of Decision-making: A Study of Auction Fever in
273
Live and Internet Auctions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 96 (2), 89–103.
Kuminoff, Nicolai V., Congwen Zhang and Jeta Rudi (2010), “Are Travelers
Willing to Pay a Premium to Stay at a ‘Green’ Hotel? Evidence from an
Internal Meta-analysis of Hedonic Price Premia,” Agricultural and Resource
Economics Review, 39 (October), 468–84.
Kurutz, Steven (October 12, 2011), “Eco Meets the Economy,” The New York
Times, (retrieved November 12, 2012), [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/
13/garden/eco-meets-the-economy.html?pagewanted=all%3Famp; r=0].
Lagerkvist, Carl Johan and Sebastian Hess (2011), “A Meta-analysis of Con-
sumer Willingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare,” European Review of
Agricultural Economics, 38 (March), 55–78.
Langen, Nina (2011), “Are Ethical Consumption and Charitable Giving
Substitutes or Not? Insights into Consumers’ Coffee Choice,” Food Quality
and Preference, 22 (July), 412–21.
Lee, Seong Youn, Yeo-chang Youn, Rin Won Joo and In Yang (2007), “Forest
Certification Scheme; Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay of Consumers and
Manufacturers in South Korea,” Journal of Korean Forest Society, 96 (2),
183–8.
Levinson, Elsa (2010), “‘Green Clothes’—A Survey of People’s Willing-
ness to Pay for Environmentally Friendly Clothes,” thesis submitted
to Sustainable Enterprising Master’s Program, Spring 2010, at Stock-
holm University, Stockholm, Sweden, (accessed January 25, 2013),
[http://su.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:350380/FULLTEXT01].
Liljenstolpe, Carolina (2008), “Evaluating Animal Welfare with Choice Exper-
iments: An Application to Swedish Pig Production,” Agribusiness, 24 (1),
67–84.
Lin, Shu-Hwa (2010), “A Case Study in Hawaii: Who Will Pay More for
Organic Cotton?,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34 (July),
481–9.
Lipsey, Mark W. and David B. Wilson (2001), Practical Meta-analysis, Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Loureiro, Mauria L. (2003), “Rethinking New Wines: Implications of Local and
Environmentally Friendly Labels,” Food Policy, 28 (5/6), 547–60.
Loureiro, Mauria L. and Justus Lotade (2005), “Do Fair Trade and Eco-labels
in Coffee Wake Up the Consumer Conscience?,” Ecological Economics, 53
(April), 129–38.
Loureiro, Maria L., Jill J. McCluskey and Ron C. Mittelhammer (2002), “Will
Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-labeled Apples?,” Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 36 (2), 203–19.
Mahé, Thuriane (2010), “Are Stated Preferences Confirmed by Purchasing
Behaviors? The Case of Fair Trade-Certified Bananas in Switzerland,” Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 92 (April), 301–15.
Manaktola, Kamal and Vinnie Jauhari (2007), “Exploring Consumer Attitude
and Bahaviour Towards Green Practices in the Lodging Industry in India,”
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19 (5),
364–77.
McVittie, Alistair, Dominic Moran and Ian Nevison (2006), “Public Preferences
for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies,”
Land Economy Working Paper Series.
Michaud, Céline and Daniel Llerena (2011), “Green Consumer Behaviour: An
Experimental Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Remanufactured Products,”
Business Strategy and the Environment, 20 (September), 408–20.
Michaud, Céline, Daniel Llerena and Iragael Joly (2012), “Willingness to Pay
for Environmental Attributes of Non-food Agricultural Products: A Real
Choice Experiment,” European Review of Agricultural Economics, (July),
1–17.
Millar, Michelle and Seyhmus Baloglu (2011), “Hotel Guests’ Preferences
for Green Guest Room Attributes,” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52 (3),
302–11.
Miller, Klaus M., Reto Hofstetter, Harley Krohmer and Z. John Zhang (2011),
“How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay be Measured? An Empir-
ical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 48 (February), 172–84.
Mohamed, Shukri and Muhamad Lukhman Ibrahim (2007), “Preliminary
Study on Willingness to Pay for Environmentally Certified Wood Prod-
ucts Among Consumers in Malaysia,” Journal of Applied Sciences, 7 (9),
1339–42.
274 S.M. Tully, R.S. Winer / Journal of Retailing 90 (2, 2014) 255–274
Moon, Wanki, Wojciech J. Florkowski, Bernhard Brückner and Ilona Schonhof
(2002), “Willingness to Pay for Environmental Practices: Implications for
Eco-labeling,” Land Economics, 78 (February), 88–102.
Moosmayer, Dirk C. (2012), “Negativity Bias in Consumer Price Response
to Ethical Information,” Business Ethics: A European Review, 21 (April),
198–208.
Muñoz, Carlos and Marisol Rivera (2002), “Tourists’ Willingness to Pay
for Green Certification of Hotels in Mexico,” working paper, Insti-
tuto Nacional de Ecología, Mexico, (accessed January 25, 2013),
[http://www.ine.gob.mx/descargas/dgipea/twpgch.pdf].
Nielsen (2011), “The ‘Green’ Gap Between Environmental Concerns and the
Cash Register,” (retrieved), [http://www.Nielsen.com].
Norwood, F. Bailey and Jayson L. Lusk (2011), “A Calibrated Auction-Conjoint
Valuation Method: Valuing Pork and Eggs Produced Under Differing Animal
Welfare Conditions,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment, 62 (July), 80–94.
Oleson, Ingrid, Frode Alfnes, Mia Bensze Røra and Kari Kolstad (2010), “Elic-
iting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Welfare-Labelled
Salmon in a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment,” Livestock Science, 127
(February), 218–26.
Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis and Nicolas Davidenko (2009), “Instruc-
tional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical
power,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–72.
Ozanne, Lucie K. and Richard P. Vlosky (1997), “Willingness to Pay for Envi-
ronmentally Certified Wood Products: A Consumer Perspective,” Forest
Products Journal, 47 (June), 39–48.
and (2003), “Certification from
the U.S. Consumer Perspective: A Comparison from 1995 and 2000,” Forest
Products Journal, 53 (March), 13–21.
Ozanne, Lucie K., Hugh Bigsby and Richard P. Vlosky (1999), “Certification
of Forest Management Practices: The New Zealand Customer Perspective,”
New Zealand Journal of Forestry, 43 (February), 17–23.
Pajari, Brita, Tim Peck and Ewald Rametsteiner (1999), “Potential Mar-
kets for Certified Forest Products in Europe,” EFI Proceedings No.
25, March 13, 1998, Brussels, Belgium, (accessed January 25, 2013),
[http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/proc25 net.pdf].
Prasad, Monica, Howard Kimeldorf, Rachel Meyer and Ian Robinson (2004),
“Consumers of the World Unite: A Market-Based Response to Sweatshops,”
Labor Studies Journal, 29 (3), 57–80.
Roberts, James A. (1996), “Green Consumers in the 1990: Profile and Implica-
tions for Advertising,” Journal of Business Research, 36, 217–31.
Rode, Julian, Robin M. Hogarth and Marc Le Menestrel (2008), “Ethical Dif-
ferentiation and Market Behavior: An Experimental Approach,” Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 66 (May), 265–80.
Roheim, Cathy A., Frank Asche and Julie Insignares Santos (2011), “The
Elusive Price Premium for Ecolabelled Products: Evidence from Seafood
in the UK Market,” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62 (September),
655–68.
Rousu, Matthew C. and Jay R. Corrigan (2008), “Consumer Preferences
for Fair Trade Foods: Implications for Trade Policy,” Choices, 23 (2),
53–5.
Saphores, Jean-Daniel M., Hilary Nixon, Oladele A. Ogunseitan and Andrew
A. Shapiro (2007), “California Households’ Willingness to Pay for ‘Green’
Electronics,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50
(January), 113–33.
Schollenberg, Linda (2012), “Estimating the Hedonic Price for Fair Trade Coffee
in Sweden,” British Food Journal, 114 (3), 428–46.
Sethuraman, Raj, Gerard J. Tellis and Richard A. Briesch (2011), “How
Well Does Advertising Work? Generalizations from Meta-analysis
of Brand Advertising Elasticities,” Journal of Marketing, 48 (May),
457–71.
Shen, Junyi (2012), “Understanding the Determinants of Consumers’ Will-
ingness to Pay for Eco-labeled Products: An Empirical Analysis of the
China Environmental Label,” Journal of Service Science and Management,
5 (March), 87–94.
Spash, Clive L., Kevin Urama, Rob Burton, Wendy Kenyon, Peter Shannon and
Gary Hill (2009), “Motives Behind Willingness to Pay for Improving Bio-
diversity in a Water Ecosystem: Economics, Ethics and Social Psychology,”
Ecological Economics, 68 (4), 955–64.
Stanley, T.D. (2005), “Beyond Publication Bias,” Journal of Economic Surveys,
19, 309–45.
Stecklow, Steve and Erin White (June 8, 2004), “What Price Virtue? At Some
Retailers, ‘Fair Trade’ Carries a Very High Cost,” The Wall Street Journal,,
Sultan, Fareena, John U. Farley and Donald R. Lehmann (1990), “A Meta-
analysis of Applications of Diffusion Models,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 27 (February), 70–7.
Teisl, Mario F., Stephanie Peavey, Felicia Newman, Joann Buono and Melissa
Hermann (2002), “Consumer Reactions to Environmental Labels for Forest
Products: A Preliminary Look,” Forest Products Journal, 52 (1), 44–50.
Tellis, Gerard J. (1988), “The Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Meta-
analysis of Econometric Models of Sales,” Journal of Marketing Research,
25 (November), 331–41.
Thompson, Derek W., Roy C. Anderson, Eric N. Hansen and Lynn R. Kahle
(2010), “Green Segmentation and Environmental Certification: Insights
from Forest Products,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 19 (July),
319–34.
Tonsor, Glynn T., Nicole Olynk and Christopher Wolf (2009), “Consumer Prefer-
ences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates,” Journal
of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41 (December), 713–30.
Trudel, Reml and June Cotte (2009), “Does It Pay To Be Good?,” MIT Sloan
Management Review, 50 (2), 61–8.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2005), Talk the Walk:
Advancing Sustainable Lifestyles Through Marketing and Communications,
Paris: UN Global Compact and Utopies.
Van Kempen, Luuk, Roldan Muradian, César Sandóval and Juan-Pablo
Castañeda (2009), “Too Poor To Be Green Consumers? A Field Experi-
ment on Revealed Preferences for Firewood in Rural Guatemala,” Ecological
Economics, 68 (May), 2160–7.
Varian, Hal R. (1992), Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton
& Company.
Veisten, Knut (2002), “Potential Demand for Certified Wood Products in
the United Kingdom and Norway,” Forest Science, 48 (November),
767–78.
(2007), “Willingness to Pay for Eco-labelled Wood Fur-
niture: Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Versus Open-Ended Contingent
Valuation,” Journal of Forest Economics, 13 (May), 29–48.
Wertenbroch, Klaus and Bernd Skiera (2002), “Measuring Consumers’ Will-
ingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase,” Journal of Marketing Research,
(May), 228–41.
White, Sarah E. (2012), “The Rising Global Interest in Sustainability and
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting,” Sustainability, Thomson
Reuters, (retrieved 05 October 2012), [http://sustainability. thomsonreuters.
com/2012/10/05/the-rising-global-interest-in-sustainability-and-corporate-
social-responsibility-reporting/].
Xu, Pei, Yinchu Zeng, Quentin Fong, Todd Lone and Yuanyuan Liu (2012), “Chi-
nese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Green- and Eco-labeled Seafood,”
Food Control, 28 (November), 74–82.
Yang, Shang-Ho, Wuyang Hu, Malvern Mupandawana and Yun Liu (2012),
“Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Chinese Case Study,”
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 44 (February), 21–34.
Yip, Winnie, Duncan Knowler and Wolfgang Haider (2012), “Assessing
the Willingness to Pay for More Sustainably Farmed Atlantic Salmon
in the Pacific Northwest: Combining Discrete Choice Experiment and
Latent Class Analysis,” working paper for Western Economics Association
International Annual Conference, June 26, (accessed January 15, 2013),
[http://pages.uoregon.edu/cameron/WEAI-AERE-2012/Yip paper.pdf].
Yue, Chengyan, Terrance M. Hurley and Neil Anderson (2011), “Do native
and Invasive Labels Affect Consumer Willingness to Pay for Plants? Evi-
dence from Experimental Auctions,” Agricultural Economics, 42 (March),
195–205.